| nettime's_roving_reporter on Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:38:28 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> ex-WB chief econ stiglitz wins nobel, talks back, supports movers |
[via t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]
<http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/17/0845237&mode=&threshold=>
Former World Bank Economist: How We "Assist"
posted by nick on Wednesday October 17, @03:43AM
from the global-bribery dept.
News Readers interested in the following story may also wish to read
our earlier piece:World Bank Responds to Four Demands from
Mobilization for Global Justice.
= <http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/05/003246&mode=nested&threshold=>
Joe Stiglitz: The Globalizer Who Came In From The Cold
The World Bank's former Chief Economist's accusations are eye-popping
- including how the IMF and US Treasury fixed the Russian elections
by Greg Palast, The Observer, London, October 10, 2001
"It has condemned people to death," the former apparatchik told me.
This was like a scene out of Le Carre. The brilliant old agent comes
in from the cold, crosses to our side, and in hours of debriefing,
empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of a political
ideology he now realizes has gone rotten.
And here before me was a far bigger catch than some used Cold War spy.
Joseph Stiglitz was Chief Economist of the World Bank. To a great
extent, the new world economic order was his theory come to life.
I "debriefed" Stigltiz over several days, at Cambridge University, in
a London hotel and finally in Washington in April 2001 during the big
confab of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But
instead of chairing the meetings of ministers and central bankers,
Stiglitz was kept exiled safely behind the blue police cordons, the
same as the nuns carrying a large wooden cross, the Bolivian union
leaders, the parents of AIDS victims and the other
'anti-globalization' protesters. The ultimate insider was now on the
outside.
In 1999 the World Bank fired Stiglitz. He was not allowed quiet
retirement; US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, I'm told, demanded a
public excommunication for Stiglitz' having expressed his first mild
dissent from globalization World Bank style.
Here in Washington we completed the last of several hours of exclusive
interviews for The Observer and BBC TV's Newsnight about the real,
often hidden, workings of the IMF, World Bank, and the bank's 51%
owner, the US Treasury.
And here, from sources unnamable (not Stiglitz), we obtained a cache
of documents marked, "confidential," "restricted," and "not otherwise
(to be) disclosed without World Bank authorization."
Stiglitz helped translate one from bureaucratise, a "Country
Assistance Strategy." There's an Assistance Strategy for every poorer
nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country
investigation. But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank's staff
'investigation' consists of close inspection of a nation's 5-star
hotels. It concludes with the Bank staff meeting some begging, busted
finance minister who is handed a 'restructuring agreement' pre-drafted
for his 'voluntary' signature (I have a selection of these).
Each nation's economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz,
the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.
Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately
be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of
state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's
demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity
and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect
of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a
few billion off the sale price of national assets.
And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case
of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The
US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected.
We don't care if it's a corrupt election. We want the money to go to
Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.
Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The
man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet as
Chairman of the President's council of economic advisors.
Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped
Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme
cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.
After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all
rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In
theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow
in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money
simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle.
Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees
at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days,
hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a
nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise
interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.
"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal
waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished
property values, savaged industrial production and drained national
treasuries.
At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three:
Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water
and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half:
what Stiglitz calls, 'The IMF riot.'
The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and
out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood
out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron
blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the
poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there
are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year
and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas
prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression
that the riot is written into the plan.
And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States,
BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World
Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential,"
"restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let's get back to one: the
"Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank
several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their
plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a
nation in flames.
That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make
the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population
below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls
for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" -
and still higher prices.
The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed
by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital
and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it's bright side
- for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets,
such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.
Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents
to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia
'subsidizing' food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out,
intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of
billions of dollars to save Indonesia's financiers and, by extension,
the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.
A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one
clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks
off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about
his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia's
new president in the nation's first democratic election. The World
Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve
account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the
nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new
president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the
nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury's vault
in Washington.
Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their
"poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the
rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the
insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was
about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and
Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin
American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third
World agriculture.
In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open
markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a
financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly.
Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO's intellectual
property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in
the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new
global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible
tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded
medicines. "They don't care," said the professor of the corporations
and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."
By the way, don't be confused by the mix in this discussion of the
IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single
governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are
unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school
'triggers' a requirement to accept every 'conditionality' - they
average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In
fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies
more punitive than the official WTO rules.
Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy
and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or
dissent. Despite the West's push for elections throughout the
developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine
democracy."
And they don't work. Black Africa's productivity under the guiding
hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did
any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana.
Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."
So then I turned on Stiglitz. OK, Mr Smart-Guy Professor, how would
you help developing nations? Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an
attack at the heart of "landlordism," on the usurious rents charged by
the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant's
crops. So I had to ask the professor: as you were top economist at the
World Bank, why didn't the Bank follow your advice?
"If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the
power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda." Apparently not.
Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure
of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the
crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four-step
monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the
IMF simply demanded more free market policies.
"It's a little like the Middle Ages," the insider told me, "When the
patient died they would say, 'well, he stopped the bloodletting too
soon, he still had a little blood in him.'"
I took away from my talks with the professor that the solution to
world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers.
*
A version of this was first published as "The IMF's Four Steps to
Damnation" in The Observer (London) in April and another version in
The Big Issue - that's the magazine that the homeless flog on
platforms in the London Underground. Big Issue offered equal space to
the IMF, whose "deputy chief media officer" wrote:
"... I find it impossible to respond given the depth and breadth of
hearsay and misinformation in [Palast's] report."
Of course it was difficult for the Deputy Chief to respond. The
information (and documents) came from the unhappy lot inside his
agency and the World Bank.
Published on Tuesday, October 16, 2001 by the Inter Press Service
Nobel Laureate Encourages Global Justice Movement
by Tim Shorrock
WASHINGTON - Joseph Stiglitz, whose critiques of free market
fundamentalism cost him a senior job at the World Bank in 1999 but won
him the Nobel Prize for economics last week, has succinct advice for
the global justice movement: Keep it up .
''The recognition that the trade agreements of the past have been
unfair is one of the important lessons of the anti-globalization
movement,'' he says. ''I think it's something that will stick with us.
And if we go forward with another round of trade talks, it will shape
our discussions.''
Regardless of whether a new round of comprehensive trade negotiations
is launched next month at the World Trade Organization ministerial
meeting in Qatar, he says, the United States and other rich countries
should follow Europe's 'everything but arms' agreement by opening
their markets to the least developed countries (LDCs) ''and say, for
the poorest countries, we aren't going to wait for a round of trade.
To show our good faith, we will commit ourselves to the poorest
countries, opening up our markets immediately.''
''It's not a question of negotiation. The amount that it would hurt
the developed countries is so small,'' he adds. ''It would provide an
opportunity for them (the LDCs) to produce something with a market.''
As for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which Stiglitz has
rebuked for its myopic focus on ''old problems'' like inflation, he
proposes a new direction that would return the institution to its
post-World War II mission of addressing real-world problems, such as
the recession that has deepened since the events of Sep. 11.
''It's time for the IMF to worry about the global economic slowdown
and provide the liquidity that would allow for global expansion,''
Stiglitz says. He urges the IMF to target the substantial funds it
controls towards ''global economic needs'' such as the ''fight against
terrorism, the fight for a better global environment, the fight for a
more equal world that would reduce the disparities between the haves
and the have-nots.''
Stiglitz's advice and analysis will receive more attention now that
he, along with U.S. economists George Akerlof and Michael Spence, has
won the 2001 Nobel Prize for economics. The award, announced Oct. 10
in Sweden, was made for their research in the 1970s and 1980s showing
that markets, when mixed with imperfect information, fail to allocate
resources fairly. Governments, they concluded, have an obligation to
address this problem by playing a stronger role in the market system.
''Joseph Stiglitz's many contributions have transformed the way
economists think about the working of markets,'' the Nobel committee
said in making the award. Stiglitz now is a professor of economics at
Columbia University in New York.
During the Clinton administration, he served as chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers and was later appointed chief economist
of the World Bank. There, he earned the wrath of then Treasury
Secretary Larry Summers, the administration's chief proponent of the
IMF, by publicly criticizing the fund for bailing out rich investors
and driving Asia into a depression during the financial crisis of 1997
and 1998. The Bank fired him, reportedly on Summers's orders, in 2000.
Stiglitz explains the relationship between his theories and his
analysis of the Asia crisis thus: The crisis was sparked when banks
refused to roll over loans in 1997 to South Korea and Indonesia.
''That was a financial market imperfection caused by information,'' he
says. ''So the credit markets were not working well. The economics of
information provided an explanation for why that was the case.''
Asked what he would say to Summers and IMF and World Bank officials
who disliked his critique of the so-called ''Washington consensus'' on
market liberalization, Stiglitz chuckles at ''the irony'' of the
situation.
''In the 1970s and 1980s, the period for which I got the prize,
there was an increasing recognition of the problems of the market
fundamentalist model,'' he says. ''The Washington consensus, which was
based on market fundamentalist ideas, lived on as an institutional
position and became solidified . just when academia was saying these
ideas do not provide a good description of the economy.''
Stiglitz says the George W. Bush administration has recognized that
the IMF bailout policies did not work and were, in effect, ''corporate
welfare'' for investors funded ''by taxpayers not in the United States
but in Russia, Brazil and other countries, who ended up paying the
bills (for) the people doing the bad lending.''
But recent actions by the Bush administration, he adds, underscore
that ''special interests do have a lot of influence'' in Washington.
Specifically, he criticizes the administration's decision earlier this
year to investigate whether imports have injured the U.S. domestic
steel industry, an action that is likely to lead to import quotas on
foreign steel.
''You can't help but raise questions when someone says 'I believe in a
market economy' and then announces he wants to set up a global steel
cartel,'' he says.
Stiglitz also is sharply critical of the United States and Europe for
subsidizing agriculture and refusing to liberalize trade in certain
industries, such as ocean shipping.
During the next trade round, he says, ''what I would like to see is
redressing some of the imbalances of the past and going forward with
far more sensitivity to the needs and concerns of the developing
countries.''
Agriculture is one area where developing countries hold a comparative
advantage ''but they can't compete into markets where there are these
huge subsidies in the United States and Europe.''
In the area of services, he notes that wealthy countries like the
United States have only agreed to open financial services. ''Which
country is the major exporter of financial services? United States.
What services were not opened up? Construction services, maritime
services, services of unskilled labor that are of concern to the
developing world. Those remain closed.''
This is why the issues raised by the anti-globalization movement are
so important, Stiglitz says. He points to the pharmaceutical industry,
which became the target of developing countries and anti-globalization
critics for selling life saving drugs at prices that ordinary people
and the poor could not afford. Agreements proposed by the U.S. Trade
Representative would have supported the companies' pricing policies,
he adds.
''The global outrage was so strong that they (the companies) made an
agreement to make them available,'' he told IPS. ''It was a global
outrage, a civil society movement, that stopped that.''
He says he first became aware of the imperfections of markets while
working as an economist in Kenya in the 1960s.
''The period that I spent in Kenya really provided a lot of
inspiration for the work that I did over the subsequent years,'' he
says. ''You cannot live or spend time in a country like that without
thinking a great deal about unemployment, about how markets don't
work. And it turned out that many of the ideas that I developed in
Kenya, when modified, applied as well to developed countries.''
Copyright c 2001 IPS-Inter Press Service
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net